3/29 derivative of fibonacci thread:
\_ I had a decent GPA (above 3.0 below 3.5), what
kind of recs did you need to get to get accepted?
I'm thinking of asking a former boss and a current
boss (prof @ stanford).
\_ If you are below 3.5 you LOSE.
Here's an approximation to the real answer. PLEASE don't start a _/
flamewar debating whether this is the Right Way For Things To Be (tm),
because that's how it is (based on evidence from several profs and 2
members of the grad adm committee), and that's what we have to live
with. What the answer seems to come out to is if your GPA is below
3.70, you need to have something exceptional on your record to have a
high chance at top-tier CS grad (ie MIT/Cal/The Farm, and a couple
of others). The standard incarnation of that "something exceptional"
is a shining letter of rec from someone who is well-known in the
academia. Most other forms of merit are largely unrecognized. Once
again, info based on 3(?) profs and 2 non-prof grad adm committee
members (all from Cal). -anonymous for obvious reasons
\_ What about patents and books? I will have a couple of
patents and have written a few CS (mass market, not
text books) books. My old boss who I was going to ask
for a rec was one of the original programmers for UNIX.
\_ Patents will be noticed but not significantly; mass
market books are even less likely to make a major
impact. The rec should be more useful, provided that
the said individual is actually _known_ as such
(eg Thompson). This is only my guess... -original poster
\_ Damn. I was going to patent my discovery on the
algorithm to crack RSA in linear time. Well, I
guess nobody cares about that so why bother.
\_ doesn't shore's algorithm do that? of course no
known computer can implememnt shore's algorithm
today, but i think it's patented.
\_ First of all, "Shor's algorithm" is a quantum
algorithm, which puts it outside the
conventional definition of algorithm (ie TM).
Second of all, Shor's factorization algorithm
is polynomial but NOT linear. And, third
of all, most self-respecting people doing
theory in the academia do NOT patent their work.
\_ Most self-respecting people don't do theory.
\_ Just cuz you ain't man enough...
-theory dude (!ilyas)
\_ My shlong's problably longer than
yours. It's not that I'm not man
enough. It's because most of theory
is just inapplicable bullshit that
only pretentious people with their
head up their own ass care about.
\_ Or perhaps you just ain't man
enough.
\_ I thought I was the AI dude? -- ilyas
\_ tell us about the stars...
\_ Yes Ilyas, you are artificially
intelligent (if that).
\_ It's Shor, people. And a quantum algorithm
is still an algorithm. |
http://csua.com/feed/